Oculus Founder Explains Why the Rift VR Headset Will Cost "More Than $350" 174
An anonymous reader writes: When Oculus took to Kickstarter in 2012, the company sought to create the 'DK1', a development kit of the Rift which the company wanted to eventually become an affordable VR headset that they would eventually take to market as a consumer product. At the time, the company was aiming for a target price around $350, but since then the company, and the scope of the Rift headset, has grown considerably. That's one reason why Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey says that the consumer Rift headset, launching in Q1 2016, will cost more than $350. '...the reason for that is that we've added a lot of technology to this thing beyond what existed in the DK1 and DK2 days,' says Luckey.
Why is this taking so long? (Score:1)
This sounds like a classic case of feature creep. Good luck to them, but at this point, things look very bleak. This team is lacking strong management that can throw the bullshit flag on the field and rein them in.
Re: (Score:1)
At first glance that sure seems the case, but VR is already quite hard to sell people on. It would be hard to release a "sub-par" version and get enough traction to iterate on that on a yearly release or something. People would buy it and not be too impressed with the result, which would make it harder to justify a subsequent purchase of an improved model.
On the other hand, what they did, you can hold off and release a better version to start with, which I can't help but feel is the right choice.
It's always
Re: (Score:2)
quite the opposite actually. Think about it, it's been 3 years since the first of this new generation of VR started. I've followed it very closely and own a couple of the devkit headsets that have come out over those three years. I have watched it evolve from a barf inducing curiosity to an established and amazing new format. 99% of the work that has gone into it is finding out what you can and can't do in VR. Some people are nearly immune to the motion sickness (John Carmack, Oculus CTO) others are hi
Engineering is expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
The parts of cheap. Make 100 Million headsets and you could sell them profitably for $150. They've got a mountain of engineering debt to pay off, though, and they're sure as hell not going to sell 100 million.
People (and research) are expensive. That's why it's going to cost so much.
Re: (Score:1)
The only reason I'd want such a critter would be for augmented reality and, frankly, I'd rather not want to meander around with these sorts of things on my head to enjoy that. It'd be neat to get "information overload" when viewing the skyline. As I hopped onto the Skyway (I'm in Buffalo still, I have my reasons) I was curious as to when and where the idea came from, how tall it was, etc... It'd be neat to have that information available in small text inside my glasses but, you know, I probably shouldn't dr
Re: (Score:1)
Oh - and occasional time to immerse into a VR world but, as a general rule, I'd probably avoid that. If done well, I think it'd be too addictive.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, have you tried one of the modern (2015) versions of VR?
Even the late 2014 development kits were pretty amazing and has replaced my previous gaming with headset gaming.
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't. I tried a long time ago at a convention and wasn't really impressed. I am also not really a gamer. The last game I played seriously was Fallout 2 and I gave up playing games when Fallout Tactics came out and turned out to be mentally handicapped (i.e. retarded). That doesn't mean I don't amuse myself, I just do it in other ways - such as 'conversing' on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult not to rant and rave about it, but I will say you should give it a try. GearVR isn't even really game focused. It does have a lot of games but has much more passive content that is pretty amazing. I've had mine since Feb and I still feel like I'm participating in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
so is dragging your ass for 4 years and not really having any product
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. It's this and the feature creep with the stupid headphones and useless controller that really pisses me off.
What they try to build is some sort of Matrix while what everyone actually wants are just head-tracked 3d goggles to play plane sims in.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech doesn't magically appear. It occurs because of engineering. It may not be your engineering budget, but somebody spent the money, time, and research costs to develop what you will eventually use.
And, just for the record, a lot of positional tracking DID come from rocket science (and the closely associated aeronautical work). And we spent a shitload of money on that kind of engineering just to get to the starting blocks where mobile phones could even consider them.
Re: (Score:1)
How would FB make money on them to get subsidies back?
No technical details. (Score:1)
"added a lot of technology " but fails to mention what they added. Yup lenses. Expensive display. "sensors". Yes, and a lot of small parts add up quickly. If you need to add a high end pc as well, they better heve some steaming content!
Maybe it's not that sinister (Score:2)
Oops! (Score:2)
Re: Oops! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
When life hands you lemons, it's time for a Gin and Tonic!
Re: (Score:2)
No need, just make it up on volume the following week.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you've spent $50,000 on lemonade taste testing and recipe development. Making a $5 glass of lemonade using a recipe which uses $0.35 of raw materials instead of $0.60 isn't going to allow you to make a bigger profit if you have to sell it for $4.75 or less.
They have two plans:
1) Sell their VR headsets for $500 and pray they sell enough
2) Declare bankruptcy, buy the tech back at liquidation, and start a new company selling the same headset for $200
Note: this is how golf courses get built.
Case study on how to blow a great oppurtunity (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been a huge supporter of Oculus since the Kickstarter. When people complained about the Facebook buyout, I tried to point out that a major player in the tech industry (like them or not, they are a major player) just dropped a massive investment in VR. When people complained about how long it was taking, I argued that doing something like this, and doing it well, has to take time - an inferior product could be a major issue for VR adoption. When they balked at releasing specs, I reminded myself that it's probably best, they wanted to make sure they had it right before they committed to something.
My first doubts started when they finally released the specs. I was really hoping for a 4K screen. After all the time and money, it seemed logical - come out of the gate with something really great or stay home. Sure, 4K isn't necessary, but there are applications for VR that would really benefit from it. Game will be the vehicle that carries the initial adoption of VR, but there are a ton of real-world applications waiting to be discovered. Personally, I want to throw out my monitors and use a VR headset to create a virtual workspace. But, anything less than 4K isn't going to give me the detail I need to write code on a virtual monitor "floating" a few feet in front of me.
My next doubts came when I started looking at the amount of "executives" and "directors" and people who stand up and do a lot of talking. I've noticed a trend (it's not new, it's always been there, I just finally noticed) - the more talking heads you have in a company, the longer, more expensive, more feature bloated (and never the features we actually want), more disappointing a product becomes. All these people swooped in and promptly buried something really cool in all the typical corporate ("we're not corporate, man! we're a startup that just happens to look like a bloated corporate monstrosity) BS.
Then this. After all the talk keeping it affordable, then they pull this crap.
I get that things add up, but I'll put this in perspective - I work for a company that is supplying them, and I know what we're charging (very low piece prices, and we're expensive compared to our competitors that do larger volumes). I also have access to price sheets from the kinds of suppliers that they're working with. Let's put it this way - there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit. So, either they've gotten a little top-heavy in the salary department, or they're getting greedy. Or both.
Either way, I'm done offering my (measly, not-reall-worth-much) support. My money is on Valve now (we're supplying them too, I've gotten to see some pretty cool stuff)
Re: (Score:2)
I was really hoping for a 4K screen
Wait, so you wanted the Oculus headset to release with a $3K pricetag? And that is probably a huge underestimate, is it even possible with current tech to shrink 4K down into an 1"x1" screen?
Personally, I want to throw out my monitors and use a VR headset to create a virtual workspace.
Ohhhh. Well you could of just told us your're an idiot upfront and saved us the effort of reading your opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit
You are nuts. 4K screens at those sizes would be extremely costly. They don't exist, they'd have to get someone to develop them and they'd want to recoup the R&D costs. Even the insane 4K screens Sony is putting in their new smart phones are much too big, and the pixels there are already TINY.
Re: (Score:1)
4K screens at those sizes would be extremely costly. They don't exist,
Even the insane 4K screens Sony is putting in their new smart phones are much too big, and the pixels there are already TINY.
You said it yourself - they do exist! The rift screen is a phone, and 4K phones exist.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need a 4k screen for each eye. On top of that there are very few graphics cards capable of rendering even lower end graphics at 4k. The top of the line nVidia card can only do it with a bunch of the rendering options kicked down to low and medium. People won't be very impressed with VR if they have to make the game look like 2000 era game to make it playable.
You are deranged to suggest that 4k is achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the insane 4K screens Sony is putting in their new smart phones are much too big, and the pixels there are already TINY.
You said it yourself - they do exist! The rift screen is a phone, and 4K phones exist.
DK2 is a phone screen, CV1 display is customized for VR with much higher fill factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Then this. After all the talk keeping it affordable, then they pull this crap.
You've come an awful long way to be discouraged by something that still costs significantly less than the phones that most people buy yearly. Look at what people spend on other components and this still isn't out of line for what you get. I bet they could have charged $500 and still sold tons of units.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit.
You do realize that if they made it 4k, you would need a $1500 video card just to be able to use it?
Even the current specs require a pretty damn beefy graphic card.
Re: (Score:3)
I get that things add up, but I'll put this in perspective - I work for a company that is supplying them, and I know what we're charging (very low piece prices, and we're expensive compared to our competitors that do larger volumes). I also have access to price sheets from the kinds of suppliers that they're working with. Let's put it this way - there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit. So, either they've gotten a little top-heavy in the salary department, or they're getting greedy. Or both.
My understanding one of the practical limiting factor is HDMI 1.3... there simply isn't an interface you can currently physically plug into that will drive a 4k display at 90hz even if you had a cheap GPU that could drive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't put your Oculus CV1 in the clothes washer when it gets dirty.
Predicting someone will be canned for the decision and the CV2 the fabric will be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I wonder what that strap holding my safety goggles on was, then... Weird, I could have sworn is was an elastic fabric, with some fabric-style padding around the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if you really meant the frame, then I don't see the relevance of your post. The frame is plastic and metal. It's a solid chunk. It is definitely not fabric. There might be some edging that is foam or fabric in the final design - however, for masks and helmets that's not uncommon and is pretty easy to clean by hand. Maybe it'll even be a modular part that can be replaced easily (that'd be best - also allow for more custom fits with different size foam pads, similar to bike helmets), but I have no id
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope they abandon the idea or at least coat with
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I think you're taking the "fabric" part in there a little too seriously.
First: Fabric hardened with epoxy is no longer fabric. It's essentially plastic with fiber for stability. For example, a plaster medical cast is made that way. Fabric (a bandage), is dipped in an epoxy (plaster), and then wrapped around your arm. After it hardens, I wouldn't call a cast a "frame made of fabric", although technically that might be what it is.
So let's look at what the article you linked says... Internals secured by fa
Re: (Score:2)
Profit is good (Score:1)
If another company can make one just as good for a cheaper price, that's awesome. Until then this is a lu
The key (Score:2)
The content / experience has helped drive mobile phones to be valued so highly, and VR will likewise be dependent. If it becomes the Must See TV of 2017 then all projections are out the w
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:3)
Oculus Rift was dead to me the instant Facebook bought it.
I wouldn't want it otherwise (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about state of the art VR technology that you would not want to put down and it could transform how you even use computers.
Eventually, maybe. But not in the near future. The only way that VR technology could transform how normal people use computers is if it can be done without a headset (or at least one that isn't much more massive that eyeglasses or a phone headset) and if it is inexpensive enough.
These threads always bring out the Luddites (Score:3, Interesting)
If the product is not for you, move along. I swear, sometimes this place is just filled with people that seem to WANT things to fail.
VR is going to land with a thud (Score:5, Insightful)
But for other kinds of game I really don't see the benefit. Yeah it could be used for first person shooters (for example) but then the game has to somehow reconcile a person running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff to someone in real life sat on a couch. It's likely that it will be extremely disorientating and puke inducing.
And aside from FPSs what can we expect? Probably some lame jump scare horror games. Probably some table top style games. But nothing that particularly justifies the experience. I bet most games will work as well if not better in 2D.
The strange part is there are at least 3 major efforts to do VR plus a number of smaller ones and they'll end up cannibalizing the market for what it is. It's going to be a bloodbath.
Re: (Score:2)
This is game changing for simulators, and simulators are big business. Not just for games, either.
Even if every other application flops, that one alone, even just in the safety training space, will be a billion dollar industry very quickly.
A text readable experience also is game changing right away in a number of spaces. That and 3D mechanical design, or even 2D design for things like PCBs.
I actually think FPS games are the worst application. Maintaining orientation is probably impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
So I don't see that sims would save the tech. Nor do I expect Oculus would
Re: (Score:2)
There is no denying VR sounds cool. In some cases it might actually be cool - I'm thinking particularly of racing / flight / space sims where you sit in a cockpit and the range of movements in game roughly correspond to real life - you sit in the game, you sit in real life, you have buttons and controls in the game, you have buttons and controls in real life.
But for other kinds of game I really don't see the benefit. Yeah it could be used for first person shooters (for example) but then the game has to somehow reconcile a person running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff to someone in real life sat on a couch. It's likely that it will be extremely disorientating and puke inducing.
And aside from FPSs what can we expect? Probably some lame jump scare horror games. Probably some table top style games. But nothing that particularly justifies the experience. I bet most games will work as well if not better in 2D.
I expect you're right about cockpit games, and I'd add giant robot cockpits to your list. They will work and work very well, and that might be enough to drive a major market.
I also agree that FPSs that are anything like modern FPSs just aren't going to work. There may be FPSs, but it will be like Rainbow Six with the realism turned up to 11, otherwise they will make you sick.
You left out a couple of major categories though.
God games? AWESOME in VR. You control the view, and you don't have to pan very fa
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it could be used for first person shooters (for example) but then the game has to somehow reconcile a person running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff to someone in real life sat on a couch. It's likely that it will be extremely disorientating and puke inducing.
I agree that it may be better suited for cockpit-style games, but why would the FPS mechanics necessarily make anybody sick? When playing an FPS on a flat screen, you're still "running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff" in game, while really just sitting on a couch. Even worse, turning your head in real life has no effect on the game viewport, which is instead turned with buttons while your head remains stationary. If that doesn't make people sick, I don't see why
Re: (Score:2)
VR is a lot like 3D movies... it get reinvented every 20 years and flops every time.
When I went to the very last World of Commodore in Toronto, circa 1993, VR was everywhere, it was the hottest subject going on in the Amiga community. I still have some flyers somewhere...
At the time I tought that we would have VR headsets in our homes in a matter of 2 or 3 years, and yet 22 years after we still don't have any practical VR.
Sadly, I don't think we'll have Holodecks or Better than Life headbands in my lifetime
Tested a demo Oculus (Score:3, Interesting)
At work they had an Oculus VR demo this past week and I got the chance to test one (I don't know the full specs of that particular unit). My experience and comments from the 5 min demo:
- Very first thing I noticed when I wore the headset was that the resolution seemed low, and the screen wasn't that bright.
- I had no control over the motion of the demo; as a result during panning, I could feel a twinge of motion sickness. Don't know what the framerate/latency was.
- It is a bit disconcerting to look at your virtual self, and while you move your real legs/arms, you don't see your virtual legs/arm move.
- The overall experience is very interesting and I think VR could be quite an enjoyable entertainment medium, but it definitely needs some work.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got my DK2 working with a kinect.
It's not _that_ much better when your virtual self does move.
Biggest problem I've got is Unity won't let me disable motion tracking with the build in VR support. So the viewpoint won't stay at the eyes.
Occulus Rift Experience (Score:2)
launch date (Score:2)
consumer Rift headset, launching in Q1 2016
i just don't think this will happen
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the game and the graphics settings. You could easily run a game with Lawnmower Man [toptenz.net] style graphics with a mid range card in 120FPS on each eye.
I think VR can be very interesting even without the super fancy hyper realistic graphics of the latest generaton games.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Also, if people will shell out $700 for the iPhone, there will be plenty of buyers for a VR headset. Even just for watching movies it would probably be a better experience than trying to watch movies on a small monitor. The games don't have to be lifelike to be fun.
Re: (Score:2)
"I agree. Also, if people will shell out $700 for the iPhone, there will be plenty of buyers for a VR headset."
Ah, here is the central point. Charge what the market will bear! Everyone has been dreaming of working VR for 30 years now. The pent up demand it outrageous. If you hear a price that makes sense, it's too low.
Re: (Score:2)
TMYK~
Just wait for the self-pleasure applications. (Score:2, Interesting)
Like with most technology, VR will become a success thanks to how it can help improve self-pleasure.
The digital tablet, the smart phone, the World Wide Web, the PC, the VCR, cable/satellite television, the telephone, ham radio, and even the printing press became popular, despite being expensive technologies in their early days, because they could deliver erotica in one form or another to people, who then used it to arouse and stimulate themselves while they were self-pleasuring (aka masturbating).
VR has rea
Re: (Score:2)
The tech is already here, if nascent. However, like printed sex toys the scene is fragmented and niche, nurtured by open-source/indies but only to the limited degree they can. To go critical, there will need to be big players to drive standardization and adoption. Then the upwards spiral will kick in, as hype drives content/development which drives hype.
And like the Internet, going big time
Re: (Score:2)
Video phones in the 80s would have been awful, the bandwidth wasn't there to support it. Skype video however is extremely popular now for people to communicate with family and friends while traveling.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a person who actually tried it (albeit preview version): you can get sick no matter the FPS depending on what is being shown to you AND your genetics.
You don't need 4k $ PC to get high enough FPS, another way is to have slightly simpler scene, no problem. And if you think consoles (Sony has something between AMD 7850-7870 in it) check out this demo (real time rendering):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I wouldn't bet on OR, though. (offtopic: a real shame how kickstarter backers won't get anything from F
No, just limited audience (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, games that are optimized for pure eye candy strain current cards, yes. But you don't have to have teh bezt pozzible grafix for everything. Take Alien: Isolation - looked really good [amd.com], but ran at excellent framerates [neogaf.com] even on older cards. And even has some vr support [slashdot.org]. Tradeoffs can be made to crank framerate, and not horrible tradeoffs. I can handle 2010 graphics [google.com] on VR, it's not like those games looked bad.
And no, a $4000 PC isn't necessary. The official specs [oculus.com] are more like $1K these days. In fact, definitely $1K [gamespot.com].
And no, 120fps/eye isn't necessary. You need low latency, definitely, but not that low. The DK2 peaks at 76fps, and yet few people report sickness at that rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Elite Dangerous all but laughed at the 290 we were running it on. A 980 may have been overkill, but it certainly does the job.
With the DK2, 75Hz has produced motion-sickness for us on the odd demo - and not just rollercoasters or other fast moving experiences.
We've also had several friends experiencing the same thing when having a go, so I'll be happy with anything over 90fps.
Re: (Score:2)
That said... every single trait of humans is on some kind of bell curve. There may well be people who need 120fps to avoid 'vr sickness', but they'll be a few standard deviations from the mean.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed - I should have mentioned that with regards to the original comment, anyone that thinks VR is dead blatantly hasn't had a go on it.
It really is that good :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to play Elite on a VR headset. It would improve many aspects of the game.
Re: (Score:1)
ZOMG VR headset brand Y makes people barf!
That's what makes the effort worth it, regardless of how few actually feel it.
Re: (Score:2)
VR is sort of like 3D movies and TV. Every generation or so it pops up again, everyone gets all excited about it, products are released that either disappoint or don't sell well, it never really catches on, and then it goes back to hibernation for another generation or so.
Don't get me wrong, I *hope* it succeeds this time. But if it's going to, companies need to get some actual consumer products on the shelves. And they need to be:
1) Consumer priced (not over $1,000 total)
2) Relatively easy to use
3) On main
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I forgot to add, of course:
5) They need to have SOFTWARE. A VR headset isn't very useful if no one is making games or apps for it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'm not sure if he is actually using a VR headset, but he does mention he is using head tracking to look around the ship in that video.
The software is there, many games support VR, unfortunately, the hardware is still so hard to find, or over priced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I totally agree, the cost is simply too high. I put this in the same category as smartwatches, a nice toy, but not a must have, yet. When this is 100 - 150 I think then you'll start to see some movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dead on Arrival - Voodoo 3D anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
VR is dead, sorry. Early adopters might pay 350$ for the headset, if only they have the necessary 4000$ PC to run it. This thing is not going to be usable on a a 300$ PC/Console anytime soon. It requires 120fps per eye to not make people sick. Current mid-range video cards don't even do 60fps on a single card. So either people are going to get a poor experience because they have poor hardware, or they're going to get a visit to the hospital because the headset physically makes them sick if they make it run at anything less than 120fps.
Nope. You only need to update the headset at 120fps, not the rendered image. You can re-use/distort the same rendered image multiple times to keep the headset happy while you render the next one. It would only take a fraction of the graphics card's power to do that.
With this technique even a 30Hz scene update rate would be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Time warp helps, but the more frames you have to interpolate, the worse the inconsistencies are. Using it to quadruple the framerate is not going to fly, because as your head moves, your perspective shifts, and time warp can't account for changes in perspective. There's also the issue that time warp does nothing for the game world itself, and your view moving around at 120Hz while everything in the world is moving at 30Hz is not exactly ideal either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VR is dead, sorry. Early adopters might pay 350$ for the headset, if only they have the necessary 4000$ PC to run it.
There are a number of 'Oculus ready' PCs advertised on the Oculus website for 1k.
This thing is not going to be usable on a a 300$ PC/Console anytime soon.
Your Ignorance of PC gaming industry is amusing.
It requires 120fps per eye to not make people sick.
Lots of things make people sick in VR. Lag, moving cameras, change in rate of motion, change in direction without commensurate forces felt in real life. For Oculus the target is 90fps because this matches the refresh rate of the display. Any disparity will make the experience suck. There are schemes like timewarp that try and make up for minor performance dips but you really n
Re: (Score:2)
That indeed is the elephant in the room:
* Nausea
There is a HUGE disconnect between with what your eyes are telling your brain and what your ears are. Your brain is getting mixed messages. We've been able to somewhat "get over" it in 2D monitors because of lack of immersion. I've been gaming since the early 80's and *never* get motion sickness. I do with VR. :-/ A certain percentage of the population gets sick on boats. That's not a great "strength" for VR.
I think it is way too early to write VR off. (
Google Cardboard shows why (Score:2)
VR is "Dead on Arrival"
It is DOA because the demand is mostly hype.
Also, the technology is at a level where things are either too easy to copy (every other company could bring one to market quickly, most have VR prototypes now) -or- it is too expensive and requires too much adaptation to get anyone interested.
Part of the hype comes from the sheer number of hobbyist/techies out there now willing to throw down on a Kickstarter for something like this. That's not good or bad that's just a fact...there are ju
Re:Dead on Arrival (Score:5, Informative)
Input lag. If you move your head but the screen doesn't update the view until 1/60th of a second later then apparently that causes some (all?) people to feel motion sickness. But reducing the lag to 1/120th of a second alleviates the symptoms.
I would definitely trust Occulus's engineers on this one. They've actually tested these things and they'd have no reason to make things more difficult on themselves (by requiring higher refresh rates) unless it was a genuine issue affecting potential customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Motion blur in VR makes you sick to your stomach and makes it really hard to see what's going on. The DK1 suffered from lots of motion blur, and it was very unpleasant. The DK2 added a low-persistence display (the OLEDs turn off while the pixels are changing, and only stay on a shorter amount of time, tricking your brain into reduced perceived motion blur) and it was a huge improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Motion blur still won't change the fact your input is laggy, and there are performance issues.
If your turn your head, and the brain spots that the turning does not match what you see, there is a chance you get a headache right there after 2-3 goes at it.
Motion blur on the other hand only smooths your perception of how "neat" the turning was. It doesn't change that your head spotted the 1-2 frames of delay, and you now get sea sickness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno - Oculus' people said 90 frames per sec, while the Anonymous Coward said 120, so clearly Oculus' engineers are talking out of their asses.
Re: (Score:2)
The eye is capable of detecting that much because of the way the images are generated.
Re: (Score:2)
it is mostly eye vs body, but on the monitor aspect yes you can see when things run above 60HZ, its most pronounced on fast camera pans, is it a huge deal? not on a single screen, 2 screens strapped to your eyeball? dunno
Much more complicated (Score:2)
why would you need 120fps per eye when the human eye isn't really capable of seeing that much?
Actually it's much more complicated.
Depending on several factor, humans might notice 120fps.
(Mainly "dotted path" type of artefacts).
(The situation is different than audiophile's obsession with 192KHz which CAN'T be heard)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction - the human *brain* is not capable of resolving *individual images* at that speed. Even 30FPS challenges it. However there is a LOT more to the visual system than image recognition. Motion detection for example happens at far higher speeds, and most people can easily tell the difference in fluidity between an animation at 60FPS and one at 100+FPS.
Re:Dead on Arrival (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah man, if I listen to music played though cables that aren't oxygen-free and connectors that aren't gold-plated, it gives me a splitting headache too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are your friends insects?
Re: (Score:3)
For once, you are 100% on topic.
Re:Dead on Arrival (Score:4, Funny)
Only the PC Master Race will get workable VR.
VR is not for unwashed console peasants.
All they deserve are 47fps bulimia simulators.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they deserve 47fps, all it would do is ruin the cinematic feel: the human eye cannot perceive over 24fps anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of humor detection detected.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah... you obviously either never used the Rift headset or are too sensitive and frail... like a delicate flower
So their marketing strategy will be, "If you can't use this, you are a girly man?"
Will we they be resurrecting Hans and Franz as spokespeople?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the fixed focal distance.
How do I know?
I'm old. Old people basically have fixed focus eyes. My DK2 is just as capable of making me sick as my VFX1 was. It isn't really any better. The DK2 developers are just getting used to it, so whatever they work on seems to help.
It's all about the content. Don't do descent in VR or you will puke, just like we did in Descent 2 in 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
Inexplicably, the new Descent will work with the DK2.
Haven't tried it myself. My first/last cigar was 30+ years ago too. Some lessons you don't forget.